Because it seems quite obvious (to me, anyway) that the endless and boundless, omnidirectional nothingness that is constantly giving-way to the expansion of our little bubble of reality (again, as depicted in the illustration)...

...represents a clear and tangible visualization of what the word “infinity” truly applies to, and therefore is neither “magic,” nor something that merely exists within the mind.
_______

But what if time itself did not exist in that boundless nothingness?

What if time itself does not exist in the bounded, or boundless, somethingness?

After all 'time' itself does not actually exist, other than in concept.

devans99 wrote:
But what if time itself did not exist in that boundless nothingness ?

What if time itself does not exist in the bounded or boundless somethingness ?

Time can only exist as the eternal NOW but how long is an individual NOW ? Since every conceivable length of time can be reduced ad infinitum this means that there is no objective measure of NOW . Yet everything is in a constant state of motion which cannot actually exist without time This means that motion can be reduced ad infinitum to the point of zero measurement as well

I think time definitely exists from a subjective perspective because it depends on the frame of reference of an observer
Whether it also exists objectively is much harder to determine . A Gods Eye View may not actually reference time at all

devans99 wrote:
But what if time itself did not exist in that boundless nothingness ?

What if time itself does not exist in the bounded or boundless somethingness ?

Time can only exist as the eternal NOW but how long is an individual NOW ? Since every conceivable length of time can be reduced ad infinitum this means that there is no objective measure of NOW . Yet everything is in a constant state of motion which cannot actually exist without time

What IS 'time'?

What IS 'it' exactly, which without 'it' motion can, supposedly, NOT actually exist anymore?

This means that motion can be reduced ad infinitum to the point of zero measurement as well

I think time definitely exists from a subjective perspective because it depends on the frame of reference of an observer

You, surreptitious57, are the subjective observer, and from that subjective viewpoint you are the one who sees 'time' definitely existing, so can you explain what 'time' IS actually, and how 'it' definitely exists, from your point of view?

AGE wrote:
You surreptitious57 are the subjective observer and from that subjective viewpoint you are the one who sees time
definitely existing so can you explain what time IS actually and how it definitely exists from your point of view ?

I can only explain how time appears to me not what it actually is
To me it is the eternal NOW that is in a constant state of motion

surreptitious57 wrote:
A Gods Eye View may not actually reference time at all

NOW to Me that is a much better way to LOOK at ( ALL ) things
What i a subjective person subjectively think has no any actual real importance to any thing at all

I try to be as objective and emotionally detached as I possibly can in relation to how I see the world
This to me is a Gods Eye View : to simply observe what is without applying subjective interpretation

AGE wrote:
You surreptitious57 are the subjective observer and from that subjective viewpoint you are the one who sees time
definitely existing so can you explain what time IS actually and how it definitely exists from your point of view ?

I can only explain how time appears to me not what it actually is

Did you not notice the words, 'from your point of view', at the end of the question? I even used a comma to separate these words from the others so that it was slightly more obvious that I KNEW and MEANT that you can only give a subjective, from you, response. Although the first half of the question clearly SHOWED this also.

I asked what 'time' IS, from your point of view. Not what 'time' IS from an unambiguous, irrefutable by any one FACTUAL point of view. (There are a lot more things human beings have to learn first before that definition can be revealed to them).

My point was to SHOW that you can only ever explain any thing, by only how it APPEARS, to you?

Yes I KNOW this is how 'time' APPEARS to you. Without looking back i think it would be pretty close word-for-word what you said before, which I was replying to.

If you did not notice my question was asking you to describe 'time' in MORE DETAIL. If 'time' is an actual physical thing that DEFINITELY exists as you are portraying it, then EXPLAINING what 'time' IS better and more clearly would, some might say, be easier to do.

However, as I wanted to show, if some thing can NOT be very well, and/or simply, explained, then just maybe 'it' is NOT how 'it' actually APPEARS, to be? Just some thing to think about.

This to me is a Gods Eye View : to simply observe what is without applying subjective interpretation

I agree.

And the very reason I ask you clarifying questions, when I know that you are just expressing a subjective, wrong interpretation of the actual and real Truth, is so that when you realize that you can NOT accurately, in full detail, answer the question, that you would then consider that just maybe that your subjective interpretation is NOT what (actually) IS thee Truth.

I am NOT here to tell any one what to think, see, nor do. I am just here to learn how to communicate in a way that people discover how they can find and SEE True answers for, and by, themselves.

What i learned that helps considerably is to LOOK AT ALL things from a completely OPEN perspective, FIRST, AND THEN use past experiences, (which are now, obviously, ALL SUBJECTIVE thoughts/interpretations/views/assumptions/beliefs/ideas/conceptions/et cetera, et cetera), to SEE/UNDERSTAND if what I am NOW SEEING is actually True, Right, and/or Correct, from an EVERY things' perspective, instead of just doing what i used to previously do and that was to just LOOK AT ALL things from my own past experiences perspective only, which NOW clearly SHOWS just how distorted things can simply, quickly, and easily become.

AGE wrote:
If you did not notice my question was asking you to describe time in MORE DETAIL . If time is an actual physical thing that DEFINITELY
exists as you are portraying it then EXPLAINING what time IS better and more clearly would some might say be easier to do

However as I wanted to show if some thing can NOT be very well and / or simply explained then just maybe it is NOT how it actually APPEARS to be

I cannot describe time in more detail because I do not know what it is
I think I know what it is but THINKING and KNOWING are not the same

I am more interested in acquiring knowledge than any subjective interpretation
I am here to learn while I can and that is fundamentally what interests me now

I only want to be an observer rather than a participant but I am only human so this is a work in progress

AGE wrote:
If you did not notice my question was asking you to describe time in MORE DETAIL . If time is an actual physical thing that DEFINITELY
exists as you are portraying it then EXPLAINING what time IS better and more clearly would some might say be easier to do

However as I wanted to show if some thing can NOT be very well and / or simply explained then just maybe it is NOT how it actually APPEARS to be

I cannot describe time in more detail because I do not know what it is

TREE and DAM are not the same also, but just like your distinction it is an obvious fact of no actual use in showing here. Now, that we have got that out, just give what you THINK you KNOW 'time' to actually BE.

If all you can give is the same as what you write before, then just write "as above".

I only want to be an observer rather than a participant but I am only human so this is a work in progress

The contradictory nature of Life some times shows up in unexpected places. See, being born as a human being you were once a True Observer, but because of the amazing ability of the human brain to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any, and every, thing, you have unfortunately learned absolutely distorted and wrong knowledge, learned how to understand it in a way that suits you, and learned how to reason it out.

But fortunately, if you NEVER believe/disbelieve any thing, and you do not to often make assumptions, then you can undo ALL of that distorted/wrong knowledge and learn HOW to Observe, and SEE/UNDERSTAND, like you want to, that is; without applying subjective interpretation, or unaffected and emotionless. You can still 'pretend to be' and 'act' like a human being, without being recognized, you will just be able to LOOK AT and SEE what really IS, instead of what (you just think) it IS.

You used to do this, so it is NOT an unnatural act. You just need to re-learn HOW to do it, AGAIN.

surreptitious57 wrote:
I am here to learn while I can and that is fundamentally what interests me now

You can NOT really learn some thing when you keep insisting that some things are true like for example : that time actually exists

I shall re phrase it then : I am here to observe in silence as much as I can before I die

Observing in silence is one way to learn, but it can be a relatively slow way to learn. Asking, and answering, clarifying questions from a truly OPEN perspective, then you will learn far more, and far quicker, then you could even have imagined, for now.

AGE wrote:
Observing in silence is one way to learn but it can be a relatively slow way to learn . Asking and answering clarifying questions
from a truly OPEN perspective then you will learn far more and far quicker then you could even have imagined for now

I want to be as open as possible and the best way to achieve this is by avoiding asking any questions at all
Because they might not be clarifying questions but loaded ones designed to reinforce ones own prejudices

I simply want to see and hear human beings without involving myself in any conversation with them
I only want to listen to what they are saying and nothing else as this is for me the best way to learn

AGE wrote:
Observing in silence is one way to learn but it can be a relatively slow way to learn . Asking and answering clarifying questions
from a truly OPEN perspective then you will learn far more and far quicker then you could even have imagined for now

I want to be as open as possible and the best way to achieve this is by avoiding asking any questions at all

Why do you say that?

To me, one can still remain fully OPEN and ask millions of questions. In fact it comes very naturally to younger children.

It is only when children are fed dishonest, untrue, not right, and/or incorrect knowledge, or they are encouraged/told to stop asking questions, that they then become distorted and closed themselves.

surreptitious57 wrote:
I simply want to see and hear human beings without involving myself in any conversation with them

coming onto a philosophy forum and having conversations with human beings does not really show that this is your true desire

For me there is a difference between quietly typing words on a computer screen and engaging in face to face conversation
My mind is always at ease when I am on my own but when with someone else I am not in control as it is more spontaneous
Being away from others is good for my mind but I can still be around words and feel just as good so they are not the same